I have been debating whether or not to link to a critique of the work of Miles Mathis, and have decided to go ahead with it. For one, the tone is respectful, and for another, I don’t have to, nor do I want to participate. I am not going to print the piece here, but rather just link to it with the warning that it is over 7,000 words long. I don’t think too many people want to take on a large reading project without warning. Right, Petra? TimR? (I bring up those two names not to belittle them, but rather because they strike me as two people who would indeed dive in)
As to my own participation, I once allowed a piece to be run here that was not only critical, but disrespectful in the extreme, even hurtful of the man’s feelings. I deeply regret that. When the author left here I took the piece down and I contacted MM, told him what I had done, and also that I could not undo what I had done. I didn’t apologize, as that seemed a bit obsequious, and what good would it do? Done was done. I only decided for myself that I would lay off criticism of MM, permanently. I had not earned the right.
“The military . . . establishes contact with a TA [target audience] using face-to-face communication (F2C) and psychological actions (PsyActs) . . . Both are audiovisual products consisting of agents of action who deliver messages to a TA . . . Both require that the people involved follow a set of guidelines while play acting to deliver the messages. Both are used to modify the behavior of the A [audience] . . . to help create audiovisual products, the military can enlist the services of theater actor guilds . . . The people who convey these messages are known as agents of action (also called actors) . . . Some agents of action can be key communicators . . . These individuals are usually seen as trustworthy to the TA . . . PsyActs are conveyed by these actors in the presence of the TA . . . The agents of action follow a general script to convey these messages. These scripts are basic guidelines which allow the actors to adjust their message as the conversation progresses so that it doesn’t sound fake . . . This is a type of live theater performance that can be carried out in a variety of settings . . .”
~ Mark M. Rich, New World War: Revolutionary Methods for Political Control
Several researchers in the truth community (see here, here, and here) have determined that the main reason for the seemingly choreographed stunt performed collaboratively by Will Smith and Chris Rock during the 94th Academy Awards ceremony was to surreptitiously promote the new Pfizer alopecia drug treatment (AKA a covert alopecia awareness campaign). Accordingly, Pfizer was a primary sponsor of the 2022 Oscars, and recently announced their new drug under development to treat alopecia.
I surmise that the reason why numerous truthers immediately recognized and described this stunt as being “transparent” fakery is because it may have been designed to be relatively obvious — and then subsequently (and almost instantly) mocked by the MSM. My suspicion is that the Pfizer sponsorship (and its future alopecia treatment) — as related to the Oscars and Jada Pinkett Smith — may have been inserted to induce this conspiracy theory.
It seems nearly everyone in the fakery analysis community took the bait.
Piece of Mindful 